Bava Kamma — Daf 79a

גנב והקדיש גנב והקיף גנב והחליף גנב ונתן במתנה גנב ופרע חובו גנב ופרע בהקיפו גנב ושלח סבלונות בבית חמיו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

מאי קמ"ל אשמעינן רישא גנב ונתן לאחר וטבח דיש שליח לדבר עבירה אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין שליח לדבר עבירה הכא יש שליח לדבר עבירה

מאי טעמא וטבחו ומכרו מה מכירה דלא אפשר דלאו על ידי אחר אף טביחה ע"י אחר מחייב

ואשמעינן סיפא גנב והקדיש מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים:

מתני׳ גנב ברשות הבעלים וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותם או שגנב חוץ מרשותם וטבח ומכר ברשותם או שגנב וטבח ומכר חוץ מרשותם משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אבל גנב וטבח ומכר ברשותם פטור

היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור הגביהו או הוציאו מרשות בעלים ומת חייב

נתנו לבכורות בנו או לבעל חוב לשומר חנם לשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר והיה מושכו ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור הגביהו או שהוציאו מרשות הבעלים ומת חייב:

גמ׳ בעי אמימר תיקנו משיכה בשומרים או לא

אמר רב יימר ת"ש נתנו לבכורות בנו או לבעל חובו לשומר חנם ולשואל לנושא שכר ולשוכר היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות הבעלים פטור מאי לאו שומר וש"מ תיקנו משיכה בשומרין

אמר ליה לא גנב

הא תנא ליה רישא תנא גנב שגנב מבית הבעלים ותנא גנב שגנב מבית שומר

אמר ליה רב אשי לא תדחייה מה לי גנב שגנב מבית שומר מה לי גנב שגנב מבית בעלים

אלא לאו שומר וש"מ תיקנו משיכה בשומרין ש"מ איתמר נמי אמר ר' אלעזר כדרך שתיקנו משיכה בלקוחות כך תיקנו משיכה בשומרין

תניא נמי הכי כדרך שתיקנו משיכה בלקוחות כך תיקנו משיכה בשומרין וכשם שהקרקע נקנית בכסף בשטר ובחזקה כך שכירות נקנית בכסף בשטר ובחזקה

שכירות דמאי אילימא

or if he stole it and consecrated it, or if he stole it and sold it on credit, or if he stole it and bartered it, or if he stole it and gave it as a gift, or if he stole it and paid a debt with it, or if he stole it and paid it for goods he had obtained on credit, or if he stole it and sent it as a betrothal gift to the house of his father-in-law, he would have to make four-fold and five-fold payments.  What is this meant to tell us? [Is not all this obvious?] — The new point lies in the opening clause: 'If he stole [a sheep or an ox] and gave it to another person who slaughtered it', [which implies] that in this case the law of agency has application even for a matter involving transgression.  Though in the whole of the Torah [there is] no [case of an] agent entrusted with a matter involving transgression [rendering the principal liable],  sin this case an agent entrusted with a matter involving transgression would render his principal liable, the reason being [that Scripture says]: 'And he slaughter it or sell it', implying that just as a sale cannot be effected without the intervention of some other person,  so also where the slaughter was effected [by some other person authorised by the thief to do so the thief would be liable]. There is also a new point in the concluding clause: 'Where he stole it and consecrated it', which tells us that it makes no difference whether he disposed of it to a private person or whether he disposed of it to the ownership of Heaven. MISHNAH. IF HE STOLE [A SHEEP OR AN OX] IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT ON THEIR PREMISES, OR IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT OUTSIDE THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT.  BUT IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT IN THEIR PREMISES, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT.  IF AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT,  BUT IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAS LIFTED IT UP  OR AFTER HE HAD ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS,  HE WOULD BE LIABLE.  SO ALSO IF HE GAVE IT TO A PRIEST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON  OR TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER, AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT  IT DIED WHILE STILL IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT; BUT IF IT DIED AFTER HE HAD LIFTED IT UP OR ALREADY TAKEN IT OUT OF THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS, HE  WOULD BE LIABLE. GEMARA. Amemar asked: Was the formality of pulling instituted  also in the case of bailees  or not? — R. Yemar replied: Come and hear: IF HE GAVE IT TO A PRIEST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF HIS FIRST-BORN SON, TO A CREDITOR, TO AN UNPAID BAILEE, TO A BORROWER, TO A PAID BAILEE OR TO A HIRER AND AS HE WAS PULLING IT OUT IT DIED WHILE IN THE PREMISES OF THE OWNERS HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. Now, this means, does it not, that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that the requirement of pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees?  — No, he rejoined; the thief was pulling it out.  But was not this already stated in the previous clause?  — There it was stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of the owners, whereas here it is stated in regard to a thief stealing from the house of a bailee. Said R. Ashi to him [Amemar]: Do not bring such arguments; what difference does it make whether the thief stole from the house of the bailee or from the house of the owners?  No; it must mean that the bailee was pulling it out, thus proving that pulling was instituted also in the case of bailees.  This can indeed he regarded as proved. It was also stated that R. Eleazar said: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so also have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees.  It has in fact been taught likewise: Just as the Sages instituted pulling in the case of purchasers, so have they instituted pulling in the case of bailees, and just as immovable property is transferred by the medium of money payment, a deed or possession,  so also is the case with hiring which is similarly acquired by the medium of money, a deed or possession. The hire of what? If you say